ABSTRACTIntroductionCitation tracking (CT) collects references with citation relationships to pertinent references that are already known. This scoping review maps the benefit of and the tools and terminology used for CT in health-related systematic literature searching.MethodsWe included methodological studies on evidence retrieval by CT in health-related literature searching without restrictions on study design, language, or publication date. We searched MEDLINE/Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL/EBSCOhost, LLISFT/EBSCOhost, LISTA/EBSCOhost, conducted web searching via Google Scholar, backward/forward CT of included studies and pertinent reviews, and contacting of experts. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction and analysis were performed by one reviewer and checked by another.ResultsWe screened 11,861 references and included 47 studies published between 1985 and 2021. Most studies (96%) assessed the benefit of CT either as supplementary or stand-alone search method. Added value of CT for evidence retrieval was found by 96% of them. Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index were the most common citation indexes used. Application of multiple citation indexes in parallel, co-citing or co-cited references, CT iterations, or software tools was rare. CT terminology was heterogeneous and frequently ambiguous.ConclusionsThe use of CT showed an added value in most of the identified studies; however, the benefit of CT in health-related systematic literature searching likely depends on multiple factors that could not be assessed with certainty. Application, terminology, and reporting are heterogeneous. Based on our results, we plan a Delphi study to develop standard recommendations for the use and reporting of CT.